Tonight:
9°c
Georgia's bloody battle with Russia was a tragic blunder by an inexperienced leadership in Tbilisi: but none the less for that, a stark warning to Russia's neighbours and the West.
President Mikheil Saakashvili's decision to launch an assault on South Ossetia was a foolish undertaking intended to provoke Moscow, which supports independence for the secessionist republic.
Militarily, the Georgian army never stood a chance. Russian troops are adept at bringing the Caucasus "under control" - as Russian TV news put it at the weekend in a lapse into Sovietspeak as it showed pictures of bombing raids.
It is mysterious why the leadership in Tbilisi thought a Kremlin whose security outlook towards the region was forged by former president Vladimir Putin's bloody suppression of the uprising in Chechnya would show restraint.
Indeed, Mr Putin, who is now prime minister, has emerged as the major player in this drama in Moscow - proof if it were needed that he has no intention of handing over the reigns to new president Dimitri Medvedev. This attack, with its fierce use of air power, bears all the hallmarks of that show of might.
Now Mr Saakashvili has the worst of all worlds - he is humiliated and politically weakened - and he has the Russians on his territory in the separatist province. Washington and Nato can press for a withdrawal and should do; there is no de jure reason for Russian forces to remain there after a ceasefire, let alone continue fighting.
The solution for South Ossetia, and the other breakaway region of Abkhazia, lies ultimately in international peacekeeping and guarantees of autonomy - the least worst option which now holds in the Balkans. That cannot be achieved while they are mere pawns in power games between Moscow and Tbilisi.
The bigger headache is how to deal with Georgia and its enthusiasm for Nato membership.
Those who blame the West for provoking Russian aggression by expanding Nato ignore the obvious point that it is up to sovereign states whether they wish to apply for membership.
States that pursue democracy and are happy to abide by international norms are entitled to do so.
To say, as Lord Ashdown did at the weekend, that this could all be obviated by simply "embracing" Russia, ignores the fact that any expansion of Nato is deeply unwelcome to Moscow. From the Baltic states to Ukraine, and presently Georgia, that logic leads entirely to handing control of who joins Nato to the Kremlin.
On practical grounds too, Nato would be unwise to freeze out Georgia on the grounds of trouble avoidance. The republic offers a vital alternative to reliance on Russia for the supply of energy - since its pipeline from Central Asia bypasses Russia - another reason why Mr Putin has been so keen to show an iron fist this time. In the wake of the BP debacle, the West cannot afford to look askance at alternative energy supply routes.
Russia is exploiting the uncertainty among the western powers about the role and future of Nato. It has used Mr Saakashvili's miscalculation in South Ossetia to deliver a show of shock and awe to the Caucasus. The implications and tensions will run for longer and far wider than this short, misguided war.
Reader views (1)
I entirely agree with your concluding paragraph. NATO is a US dominated alliance and its members have to go along with whatever any current US president wants (and he wants what his paying supporters want, in this case cheap oil). Russia rightly feels threatened by the crazy pressures of US "defensive" missile shields on its borders - wouldn't you be if a nutter moved in next door? And it you ally yourself with an immature belligerent Georgian president, you must expect to get a bloody punch on the nose. As a voter, I would like to see more adult behaviour and rational thought in my elected leaders. But I am not holding my breath!
- John Johnson, London, UK
